Dirk Gentile's Wholy(ish)tic Manuscript Detective Agency ("First Century Mark")

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Dirk Gentile's Wholy(ish)tic Manuscript Detective Agency ("First Century Mark")

Post by JoeWallack » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:23 am

O No Ob Knows, Notarizedious

JW:
There are a few other Threads here and elsewhere already regarding The First Century Gospel Mark Hoax/ConPiracy but I'm going to start this one anyway, secondarily because the issue has not received the proper Skeptical attention and primarily because, as always, I am starved for attention.

This case involves:
  • 1) Claims by CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) not supported by the evidence.

    2) Claims by CBS individuals not qualified to make such claims.

    3) Lack of industry regulation required by most other disciplines.

    4) CBS underestimating the significance of monetary motivation.
As the holy scam has been primarily Evangelical related it's probably not a good idea having the primary investigator being Inspector Christeau.
As always, Skeptics (surprise) should be the primary investigator but regarding the list above, Skeptics are like Zaphod Beeblebrox when he went into the total isolation chamber and suffered no ill effect because he went into it already thinking he was the most important person in the Universe. Likewise, Skeptics go into this Apartheid of cherry-picking evidence already knowing that the list is true, there is therefore no surprise, and the issue is thus less interesting.

This Thread will give a Skeptical chronology of the The First Century Gospel Mark Hoax/ConPiracy Saga with proper identification of sources and a rating of the credibility of the source (have your microscopes near).

Evidence Source Credibility of Source Commentary


Joseph

Still Waiting For Someone To Find Me An Anti-Palestinian T-Shirt

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Dating Game

Post by JoeWallack » Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:41 pm

Tell Me Lies

JW:

Date Evidence Source Credibility of Source Commentary
Pre-recent Egypt Exploration Society
Dating the papyrus and identification as Mark: EES records include a photograph and brief record card for each papyrus awaiting publication, which were prepared to assist the General Editors in selecting papyri for future volumes. The cards were created without detailed study of the texts and without access to today’s online search tools. The record card for 5345, created by Dr Coles in the early 1980s, is marked ‘I/II’, suggesting a late first- or early second-century date. He did not identify it as Mark. This is not surprising because the clearest link is a word on the abraded side which would not have been legible on a quick inspection.
Egypt Exploration Society B 1. B rating for credibility at this point as no publicized problems with credibility at this point in time but it is a non-profit so presumably staff are relatively volunteers/less qualified then for profit organization.
2. Note that at this point in time there is indeed evidence that the fragment is 1st century. Just not good evidence.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Stop, In The Name of Love One Another

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:22 am

The End Of The Innocence

JW:

Date Evidence Summary of Evidence Source Credibility of Source Commentary
Pre-recent Egypt Exploration Society
Dating the papyrus and identification as Mark: EES records include a photograph and brief record card for each papyrus awaiting publication, which were prepared to assist the General Editors in selecting papyri for future volumes. The cards were created without detailed study of the texts and without access to today’s online search tools. The record card for 5345, created by Dr Coles in the early 1980s, is marked ‘I/II’, suggesting a late first- or early second-century date. He did not identify it as Mark. This is not surprising because the clearest link is a word on the abraded side which would not have been legible on a quick inspection.
The fragment which came to be known as "First Century Mark"(FCM), was originally catalogued as first/second century and not identified as GMark, without a detailed analysis. Egypt Exploration Society B 1. B rating for credibility at this point as no publicized problems with credibility at this point in time but it is a non-profit so presumably staff are relatively volunteers/less qualified then for profit organization.
2. Note that at this point in time there is indeed evidence that the fragment is 1st century. Just not good evidence.
2009-2010 Dirk Obbink and the Oxyrhynchus “Distribution” Papyri
Now, the buying and selling of these “Distribution Papyri” is legal. Whether it’s ethical is a separate question (the Egypt Exploration Society has taken a stand against the sale of “Distribution” items). These records, if accurate, show that Professor Obbink was active in the antiquities market, and it is fascinating to see that Professor Obbink was buying and then almost immediately reselling these pieces to the Green Collection. It’s not just this Psalms fragment. It’s several pieces bought from United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio: P.Oxy. 1353; P.Oxy. 1459; P.Oxy. 1678; P.Oxy. 1688; P.Oxy. 1728; P.Oxy. 1756; and P.Oxy. 1775, as well as a Tebtunis papyrus.

It’s also noteworthy that this was happening quite early in the formation of the Green Collection–in 2010. If these records are accurate, then almost from the beginning of the enterprise, Dirk Obbink was not just an advisor, but also a supplier of manuscripts to the Green Collection. It certainly makes the question of the ownership history of the unprovenanced Christian manuscripts in the Green Collection and Museum of the Bible all the more pressing.
Obbink was buying and selling "distribution" fragments from EES to Green prior to the FCM fiasco. Distribution fragments are fragments given by EES to non-profits and can legally be bought and sold. Brent Nongbri A 1. Nongbri has a Phd from Yale and is recognized by everyone as an expert in Manuscript dating. The only known possible chink is he seems to be reluctant to disclose his religious affiliation. As there is currently no evidence to subtract from his credibility he starts out at "A". His source here though is Green Collection which will be shown to have credibility of "F". But no one is disputing what Nongbri says Green Collection shows above (although as far as we know Obblink had his tongue cut out sometime in 2012).
2. Note that at this time there is indeed evidence that Obbink not only was buying and selling EES fragments but sold them to Green Collection.
3. Stop. We have Obbink, perhaps the best know ancient Manuscript dater in the history of the world, buying and selling ancient Manuscripts whose value is exponentially based on dating. Perhaps the very definition of a credibility rating of F (Crocker gave him a rating of Super-F).
4. The truth, as is often the case, may lie, somewhere in between. There may have been some kind of "understanding" between Obbink and Green that for all practical purposes Green was the only real buyer and Obbink was being compensated for his involvement by the difference between his buy and sell. Dare I say that there may likewise have been some understanding between Obbink and EES for EES not to be publicly interested (at least until all was made public).
5. The problem for the Superior Skeptic here acting as Judge is the Case primarily involves Obbink verses Green Collection and both sides have credibility of F.
6. Of course this is representative of the broader problem of CBS that you have theologians masquerading as Bible scholars (mis)handling the supposed evidence and the even broader problem that everyone, including CBS, is biased on money (cooughbink!).


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

I Take The Fifth (Century)

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:18 am

What Do You Get Not To Publicly Speak?

JW:

Date Evidence Summary of Evidence Source Credibility of Source Commentary
Pre-recent Egypt Exploration Society
Dating the papyrus and identification as Mark: EES records include a photograph and brief record card for each papyrus awaiting publication, which were prepared to assist the General Editors in selecting papyri for future volumes. The cards were created without detailed study of the texts and without access to today’s online search tools. The record card for 5345, created by Dr Coles in the early 1980s, is marked ‘I/II’, suggesting a late first- or early second-century date. He did not identify it as Mark. This is not surprising because the clearest link is a word on the abraded side which would not have been legible on a quick inspection.
The fragment which came to be known as "First Century Mark"(FCM), was originally catalogued as first/second century and not identified as GMark, without a detailed analysis. Egypt Exploration Society B 1. B rating for credibility at this point as no publicized problems with credibility at this point in time but it is a non-profit so presumably staff are relatively volunteers/less qualified then for profit organization.
2. Note that at this point in time there is indeed evidence that the fragment is 1st century. Just not good evidence.
2009-2010 Dirk Obbink and the Oxyrhynchus “Distribution” Papyri
Now, the buying and selling of these “Distribution Papyri” is legal. Whether it’s ethical is a separate question (the Egypt Exploration Society has taken a stand against the sale of “Distribution” items). These records, if accurate, show that Professor Obbink was active in the antiquities market, and it is fascinating to see that Professor Obbink was buying and then almost immediately reselling these pieces to the Green Collection. It’s not just this Psalms fragment. It’s several pieces bought from United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio: P.Oxy. 1353; P.Oxy. 1459; P.Oxy. 1678; P.Oxy. 1688; P.Oxy. 1728; P.Oxy. 1756; and P.Oxy. 1775, as well as a Tebtunis papyrus.

It’s also noteworthy that this was happening quite early in the formation of the Green Collection–in 2010. If these records are accurate, then almost from the beginning of the enterprise, Dirk Obbink was not just an advisor, but also a supplier of manuscripts to the Green Collection. It certainly makes the question of the ownership history of the unprovenanced Christian manuscripts in the Green Collection and Museum of the Bible all the more pressing.
Obbink was buying and selling "distribution" fragments from EES to Green prior to the FCM fiasco. Distribution fragments are fragments given by EES to non-profits and can legally be bought and sold. Brent Nongbri A 1. Nongbri has a Phd from Yale and is recognized by everyone as an expert in Manuscript dating. The only known possible chink is he seems to be reluctant to disclose his religious affiliation. As there is currently no evidence to subtract from his credibility he starts out at "A". His source here though is Green Collection which will be shown to have credibility of "F". But no one is disputing what Nongbri says Green Collection shows above (although as far as we know Obblink had his tongue cut out sometime in 2012).
2. Note that at this time there is indeed evidence that Obbink not only was buying and selling EES fragments but sold them to Green Collection.
3. Stop. We have Obbink, perhaps the best know ancient Manuscript dater in the history of the world, buying and selling ancient Manuscripts whose value is exponentially based on dating. Perhaps the very definition of a credibility rating of F (Crocker gave him a rating of Super-F).
4. The truth, as is often the case, may lie, somewhere in between. There may have been some kind of "understanding" between Obbink and Green that for all practical purposes Green was the only real buyer and Obbink was being compensated for his involvement by the difference between his buy and sell. Dare I say that there may likewise have been some understanding between Obbink and EES for EES not to be publicly interested (at least until all was made public).
5. The problem for the Superior Skeptic here acting as Judge is the Case primarily involves Obbink verses Green Collection and both sides have credibility of F.
6. Of course this is representative of the broader problem of CBS that you have theologians masquerading as Bible scholars (mis)handling the supposed evidence and the even broader problem that everyone, including CBS, is biased on money (cooughbink!).
2011 Statement in response to questions raised about the new fragment of Mark P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345
Dating the papyrus and identification as Mark:...The identification of the fragment as Mark was made in 2011 by a researcher working for Professor Obbink, then one of the General Editors of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series. Professor Obbink decided he would himself prepare the text for publication. Editors are permitted, on certain conditions, to take out individual papyri from the collection for study or teaching on University premises.
The identification of the fragment as GMark is made by an Obbink research assistant. Egypt Exploration Society B 1. Now that Obfink is being (over)compensated by Green for finding what Green wants, one Skeptic has to wonder if it works the other Way. What is Obbink's incentive to find what Green does not want, like textual variation or anti Christian assertions?
2. As a reward for identifying the fragment as GMark Obbink gave the assistant a one way ticket to a Dominican Republic Resort.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Dirk Gentile's Wholy(ish)tic Manuscript Detective Agency ("First Century Mark")

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:10 am

I've mused on more than one occasion that it would be in the interest of many evangelicals to buy and destroy Secret Mark. Mission accomplished
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Castles In The Sands (Of Egypt)

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:06 am

What Did I Tell You

JW:

Date Evidence Summary of Evidence Source Credibility of Source Commentary
Pre-recent Egypt Exploration Society
Dating the papyrus and identification as Mark: EES records include a photograph and brief record card for each papyrus awaiting publication, which were prepared to assist the General Editors in selecting papyri for future volumes. The cards were created without detailed study of the texts and without access to today’s online search tools. The record card for 5345, created by Dr Coles in the early 1980s, is marked ‘I/II’, suggesting a late first- or early second-century date. He did not identify it as Mark. This is not surprising because the clearest link is a word on the abraded side which would not have been legible on a quick inspection.
The fragment which came to be known as "First Century Mark"(FCM), was originally catalogued as first/second century and not identified as GMark, without a detailed analysis. Egypt Exploration Society B 1. B rating for credibility at this point as no publicized problems with credibility at this point in time but it is a non-profit so presumably staff are relatively volunteers/less qualified then for profit organization.
2. Note that at this point in time there is indeed evidence that the fragment is 1st century. Just not good evidence.
2009-2010 Dirk Obbink and the Oxyrhynchus “Distribution” Papyri
Now, the buying and selling of these “Distribution Papyri” is legal. Whether it’s ethical is a separate question (the Egypt Exploration Society has taken a stand against the sale of “Distribution” items). These records, if accurate, show that Professor Obbink was active in the antiquities market, and it is fascinating to see that Professor Obbink was buying and then almost immediately reselling these pieces to the Green Collection. It’s not just this Psalms fragment. It’s several pieces bought from United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio: P.Oxy. 1353; P.Oxy. 1459; P.Oxy. 1678; P.Oxy. 1688; P.Oxy. 1728; P.Oxy. 1756; and P.Oxy. 1775, as well as a Tebtunis papyrus.

It’s also noteworthy that this was happening quite early in the formation of the Green Collection–in 2010. If these records are accurate, then almost from the beginning of the enterprise, Dirk Obbink was not just an advisor, but also a supplier of manuscripts to the Green Collection. It certainly makes the question of the ownership history of the unprovenanced Christian manuscripts in the Green Collection and Museum of the Bible all the more pressing.
Obbink was buying and selling "distribution" fragments from EES to Green prior to the FCM fiasco. Distribution fragments are fragments given by EES to non-profits and can legally be bought and sold. Brent Nongbri A 1. Nongbri has a Phd from Yale and is recognized by everyone as an expert in Manuscript dating. The only known possible chink is he seems to be reluctant to disclose his religious affiliation. As there is currently no evidence to subtract from his credibility he starts out at "A". His source here though is Green Collection which will be shown to have credibility of "F". But no one is disputing what Nongbri says Green Collection shows above (although as far as we know Obblink had his tongue cut out sometime in 2012).
2. Note that at this time there is indeed evidence that Obbink not only was buying and selling EES fragments but sold them to Green Collection.
3. Stop. We have Obbink, perhaps the best know ancient Manuscript dater in the history of the world, buying and selling ancient Manuscripts whose value is exponentially based on dating. Perhaps the very definition of a credibility rating of F (Crocker gave him a rating of Super-F).
4. The truth, as is often the case, may lie, somewhere in between. There may have been some kind of "understanding" between Obbink and Green that for all practical purposes Green was the only real buyer and Obbink was being compensated for his involvement by the difference between his buy and sell. Dare I say that there may likewise have been some understanding between Obbink and EES for EES not to be publicly interested (at least until all was made public).
5. The problem for the Superior Skeptic here acting as Judge is the Case primarily involves Obbink verses Green Collection and both sides have credibility of F.
6. Of course this is representative of the broader problem of CBS that you have theologians masquerading as Bible scholars (mis)handling the supposed evidence and the even broader problem that everyone, including CBS, is biased on money (cooughbink!).
2011 Statement in response to questions raised about the new fragment of Mark P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345
Dating the papyrus and identification as Mark:...The identification of the fragment as Mark was made in 2011 by a researcher working for Professor Obbink, then one of the General Editors of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series. Professor Obbink decided he would himself prepare the text for publication. Editors are permitted, on certain conditions, to take out individual papyri from the collection for study or teaching on University premises.
The identification of the fragment as GMark is made by an Obbink research assistant. Egypt Exploration Society B 1. Now that Obfink is being (over)compensated by Green for finding what Green wants, one Skeptic has to wonder if it works the other Way. What is Obbink's incentive to find what Green does not want, like textual variation or anti Christian assertions?
2. As a reward for identifying the fragment as GMark Obbink gave the assistant a one way ticket to a Dominican Republic Resort.
2011 Scott Carroll responds
3. The basic elements of my recollection of those initial interactions have not changed since 2011. DO showed me the MK 1 papyrus on the pool table in his office. He said it had been dated to the late 1st or early 2nd c and he then went into some paleographic detail why he believed it must date to the late 1st c. It was in this conversation that he offered it for consideration for HL to buy (w/o mentioning a price). I said I would mention it to them which I did. I seem to remember mentioning it to them on occasion, but they never asked me about it or mentioned it to me. With my departure in June of 2012, I never signed a non-disclosure agreement.
Obbink offers to sell FCM to Hobby Lobby (HL) Scott Carroll F 1. As Gordon Gecko famously said, "The most valuable commodity I know of is information. Wouldn't you agree Paleo." The key to the FCM Scam/Hoax/Conspiracy is knowledge of who the actual owner is. At this point in time the only party aware that EES is the owner is Obfink. Even the actual owner, EES, is not aware that they are the owner. Only the Fake Good News seller is. That's a bad combination.
2. Regarding Scott Carroll credibility, see Ehrman.
3. Looking ahead, Obbink's [Colbert]alleged[/Colbert] sale of FCM and shortly subsequent purchase of a Castle in Waco reminds me of the classic situation in Goodfellas where after The Heist De Niro is going De Niro on everyone for their failure to lay low:
DeNiro: Johnny DOh! What did I tell you? Lay low. You didn't just buy a mink coat or a Cadillac, you bought a fucking Castle! In Waco where your new appointment is and it's flatter than Sarah Bernhard and dryer than Betty White.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

FCM Hoax & Condemnation of CBS for Dummies

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:20 pm

Goodfragments in 30(CE)

JW:

For those having difficulties following my voluminous tables (or just short attention spans), a condensed version of the chronology:

Date Summary of Evidence
Pre-recent EES has in its collection what will later become known as FCM. After a brief inspection it is cataloged as first or second century but not identified as from GMark.
2009-2010 Dirk Obbink is buying and selling items to Green that were originally owned by EES but were subsequently given by EES to non-profits.
2011 Dirk Obbink, as editor of EES, has access to EES inventory. An assistant to Obbink discovers that the fragment that becomes known as FCM is from GMark.
2011 Dirk Obbink reveals FCM to Hobby Lobby and offers to sell it to them.





Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Dr. Scott!

Post by JoeWallack » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Transported across space and perhaps dating time, itself!

JW:

Date Evidence Summary of Evidence Source Credibility of Source Commentary
2011 Scott Carroll responds
3. The basic elements of my recollection of those initial interactions have not changed since 2011. DO showed me the MK 1 papyrus on the pool table in his office. He said it had been dated to the late 1st or early 2nd c and he then went into some paleographic detail why he believed it must date to the late 1st c. It was in this conversation that he offered it for consideration for HL to buy (w/o mentioning a price). I said I would mention it to them which I did. I seem to remember mentioning it to them on occasion, but they never asked me about it or mentioned it to me. With my departure in June of 2012, I never signed a non-disclosure agreement.
Obbink offers to sell FCM to Hobby Lobby (HL) Scott Carroll F 1. As Gordon Gecko famously said, "The most valuable commodity I know of is information. Wouldn't you agree Paleo." The key to the FCM Scam/Hoax/Conspiracy is knowledge of who the actual owner is. At this point in time the only party aware that EES is the owner is Obfink. Even the actual owner, EES, is not aware that they are the owner. Only the Fake Good News seller is. That's a bad combination.
2. Regarding Scott Carroll credibility, see Ehrman.
3. Looking ahead, Obbink's [Colbert]alleged[/Colbert] sale of FCM and shortly subsequent purchase of a Castle in Waco reminds me of the classic situation in Goodfellas where after The Heist De Niro is going De Niro on everyone for their failure to lay low:
DeNiro: Johnny DOh! What did I tell you? Lay low. You didn't just buy a mink coat or a Cadillac, you bought a fucking Castle! In Waco where your new appointment is and it's flatter than Sarah Bernhard and dryer than Betty White.
2011 Scott Carroll responds
4. These are my recollections based on my brief conversation about the Mk 1 papyrus with DW. I mentioned it to DW briefly in passing. I told him that the dating was based on the opinion of a renowned Oxford scholar. He mentioned a debate, which I knew nothing of, and asked if he could mention it. I said it wasn't owned by HL so I couldn't speak for them. I told him he would have to use his own discretion. It wasn't my debate and how could I possible tell DW (who I did not know) to do something like that? And for what benefit to HL or DO? I did not have pictures of the papyrus. I do not think there could have been any way possible for DW to have seen Mk 1 before debate.
Scott Carroll tells Daniel Wallace (DW) about FCM before Wallace's debate with Ehrman. Scott Carroll F 1. Scott Carroll is morphing into Sargent Schultz. Everything is brief and he.. knows..nothing! Why would he be interested in a first century fragment of GMark? When Carroll told Green Green probably said sarcastically, "That's very interesting. What'dja have for lunch today."


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Dirk Gentile's Wholy(ish)tic Manuscript Detective Agency ("First Century Mark")

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:13 am

You (and readers) might find the comments section interesting https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blo ... k.html?m=1
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

First Century Mark Memories

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:07 am

Evangelical Chats

JW:

Date Evidence Summary of Evidence Source Credibility of Source Commentary
2011 Scott Carroll responds
3. The basic elements of my recollection of those initial interactions have not changed since 2011. DO showed me the MK 1 papyrus on the pool table in his office. He said it had been dated to the late 1st or early 2nd c and he then went into some paleographic detail why he believed it must date to the late 1st c. It was in this conversation that he offered it for consideration for HL to buy (w/o mentioning a price). I said I would mention it to them which I did. I seem to remember mentioning it to them on occasion, but they never asked me about it or mentioned it to me. With my departure in June of 2012, I never signed a non-disclosure agreement.
Obbink offers to sell FCM to Hobby Lobby (HL) Scott Carroll F 1. As Gordon Gecko famously said, "The most valuable commodity I know of is information. Wouldn't you agree Paleo." The key to the FCM Scam/Hoax/Conspiracy is knowledge of who the actual owner is. At this point in time the only party aware that EES is the owner is Obfink. Even the actual owner, EES, is not aware that they are the owner. Only the Fake Good News seller is. That's a bad combination.
2. Regarding Scott Carroll credibility, see Ehrman.
3. Looking ahead, Obbink's [Colbert]alleged[/Colbert] sale of FCM and shortly subsequent purchase of a Castle in Waco reminds me of the classic situation in Goodfellas where after The Heist De Niro is going De Niro on everyone for their failure to lay low:
DeNiro: Johnny DOh! What did I tell you? Lay low. You didn't just buy a mink coat or a Cadillac, you bought a fucking Castle! In Waco where your new appointment is and it's flatter than Sarah Bernhard and dryer than Betty White.
2011 Scott Carroll responds
4. These are my recollections based on my brief conversation about the Mk 1 papyrus with DW. I mentioned it to DW briefly in passing. I told him that the dating was based on the opinion of a renowned Oxford scholar. He mentioned a debate, which I knew nothing of, and asked if he could mention it. I said it wasn't owned by HL so I couldn't speak for them. I told him he would have to use his own discretion. It wasn't my debate and how could I possible tell DW (who I did not know) to do something like that? And for what benefit to HL or DO? I did not have pictures of the papyrus. I do not think there could have been any way possible for DW to have seen Mk 1 before debate.
Scott Carroll tells Daniel Wallace (DW) about FCM before Wallace's debate with Ehrman. Scott Carroll F 1. Scott Carroll is morphing into Sargent Schultz. Everything is brief and he.. knows..nothing! Why would he be interested in a first century fragment of GMark? When Carroll told Green Green probably said sarcastically, "That's very interesting. What'dja have for lunch today."
2012 My Debate with Dan Wallace: Is the Original NT Lost?
This is the debate in which Dan announced that later that year (2012) a newly discovered first-century copy of the Gospel of Mark was to be published.
Daniel Wallace claims in a debate with Bart Ehrman that FCM is first century. Ehrman A 1. Ehrman deserves some criticism for making conclusions about Historical Jesus that are not supported by the evidence but other than that he is generally considered one of the best (if not the best) Textual Critics of all time and very knowledgeable regarding ancient history.
2. Ehrman's blog is prone to making inexact statements such as "first-century copy of the Gospel of Mark" (Wallace and Ehrman both knew that whatever FCM was it was not a copy of GMark, just a fragment).
3. This announcement by DW is what launched FCM into the public arena. Note that American Evangelicals are still reluctant to publicly criticize the American Evangelicals involved, Wallace, Carroll, Pattengale and especially Green. It has mainly been non American evangelicals asking questions/speculating/criticizing.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

Post Reply